- 43,657
- 8,659
Who will win the Johan Santana sweepstakes?!?!?!
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by curtiscarter23,
- Start date
- 532
- 10
People really need to stop complaining about a salary cap. They have one in basketball and someone tell me how many different teams have won a championship thepast 20 years? Bulls, Lakers, Spurs, Pistons, Rockets, and the Heat. Doesn't seem that competitive to me.
- 3,626
- 78
CMON METS!!!1Get it done Minaya we NEED AN ACE!!
- 1,769
- 11
Would mets fans still be soo eager to get johan if it meant trading JOSE REYES! because i read something saying that a source close to omar minaya would hateto trade away reyes but if it were for johan he would pull the trigger!
- 2,213
- 16
I think the Yankes will get him,
Said they giving up Melky, Kennedy, and another Prospect....
That's good enough
I hope the yanks get him
Said they giving up Melky, Kennedy, and another Prospect....
That's good enough
I hope the yanks get him
- 6,597
- 10
- 21,951
- 1,398
Omar would not get rid of Reyes, how would that help the team?
I highly doubt the Mets get Santana, and I'll be glad if they don't. They should focus on the pitchers mentioned previously.
I highly doubt the Mets get Santana, and I'll be glad if they don't. They should focus on the pitchers mentioned previously.
- 532
- 10
^^^ But there's no limit to how much a team can spend. Don't complain because larger market teams have owners that are willing to pay for players andsmaller market teams have owners who just want to make money. The problem is the owners who want to look at their team as a business and try and maximizetheir profit instead of spending money to try and win a ring. I understand what you're saying about larger market teams generating more revenue to spendon players, but if you're wealthy enough to even own a professional franchise then you should have enough money to put a quality team on the field.
darthska
Staff member
- 46,870
- 31,397
There is a huge difference between the NBA and the MLB.
Parity.
True, the Heat, Lakers, Spurs, Pistons, Rockets and Bulls have won everything since... damn... since like forever ago, but the NBA has a lot more teams init's playoffs compared to MLB. True, those teams have won the championships, but how many teams have lost? And further, how many teams have contended (asin 'made the playoffs') while the Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, Spurs, Rockets, and Heat have won?
In MLB, it's the same teams, and they're always the teams that spend the most. Even my team, I mentioned earlier that NOW we're spending money, butthat's only been sice we won it all. And look at what has happened to us. I remember growing up HOPING that th Angels would make the playoffs, and it onlya happened a few times before 2002. It happened so few times in 2002 that I still remember playing the Yankees in the first round in 2002, and just being happythat we were THERE. I had no idea (obviously) that we would eventually win it all in 2002; I had no idea of that in the first round. I was just happy that theAngels were IN.
Now? Like I said, we've been spending money since that 2002 World Series victory, and we're retty much expected to be in the AL playoffs every year byjust about every expert.
There's something wrong with that.
There's so few chances in the MLB to make the playoffs (just 4 teams get in on each side) and so many chances to make the NBA playoffs (8 on each side)that it really makes it more of a money matter in MLB; the teams spending money are the teams that are going to be in every year.
It didn't used to be like that with my team.
Now it is.
And I can see how that's a problem.
Only 4 hances to get in the AL, and because we're spending now, we're basically a lock for the ALW or ALWC every year? That's wrong.
Parity.
True, the Heat, Lakers, Spurs, Pistons, Rockets and Bulls have won everything since... damn... since like forever ago, but the NBA has a lot more teams init's playoffs compared to MLB. True, those teams have won the championships, but how many teams have lost? And further, how many teams have contended (asin 'made the playoffs') while the Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, Spurs, Rockets, and Heat have won?
In MLB, it's the same teams, and they're always the teams that spend the most. Even my team, I mentioned earlier that NOW we're spending money, butthat's only been sice we won it all. And look at what has happened to us. I remember growing up HOPING that th Angels would make the playoffs, and it onlya happened a few times before 2002. It happened so few times in 2002 that I still remember playing the Yankees in the first round in 2002, and just being happythat we were THERE. I had no idea (obviously) that we would eventually win it all in 2002; I had no idea of that in the first round. I was just happy that theAngels were IN.
Now? Like I said, we've been spending money since that 2002 World Series victory, and we're retty much expected to be in the AL playoffs every year byjust about every expert.
There's something wrong with that.
There's so few chances in the MLB to make the playoffs (just 4 teams get in on each side) and so many chances to make the NBA playoffs (8 on each side)that it really makes it more of a money matter in MLB; the teams spending money are the teams that are going to be in every year.
It didn't used to be like that with my team.
Now it is.
And I can see how that's a problem.
Only 4 hances to get in the AL, and because we're spending now, we're basically a lock for the ALW or ALWC every year? That's wrong.
- 7,836
- 4,846
Ehhhh I'll ramble for a minute....
We have these debates on here constantly, and I can see both sides. I come from a small market area so I have stronger feelings towards that....just likeYankee and Red Sox fans have stronger feelings on their way. I'd never hold it against NY throwing around money like they do....that is the way ALL fanswish their teams would operate. They have the option of overspending and they do it. More power to them. However you still are going to get jealousy, and youstill are going to get people saying "That aint right." Spending is one thing, throwing money around like it's going out of style is another.
Let's look at it competitively, and nothing else just for a minute. We've all gone over owners that are cheap, owners that spend too much, etc. Thetruth as usual lies probably somewhere in the middle.
Just as one example according to USA Today here were the higher-middle payrolls for the MLB for 2007:
10. $93.5 million - Orioles
11. $90.3 - Cardinals
12. $90.2 - Giants
13. $89.4 - Phillies
The Yankees payroll? About $200 million. We know the hole there. If the Yankees spend 100 mil on one player, and his previous team offered him a morereasonable 60 mil for his skill-set, is his previous team really "cheap." Thats the question sometimes. Often times I dont know.
So you look at the Yankees payroll, how it litterally dwarfs almost every teams....then now you hear they are in the lead with Santana and will have to giveHIM $150 million. And next offseason (or the trade deadline), they'll take on another huge contract on top of that. Its like, when does it ever end? Whenis my favorite team going to be able to not have to worry about "Well, the YANKS will overpay him cause they want him." So my team then has tooverpay him or risk losing him and "disrespecting him."
You look at the Yankees signing an aging (but yes still productive) Mariano for 40+ million or whatever. Do you know the domino effect that then has for therest of baseball? Now every younger top closer will say he is worth 50. So teams then have to dump them to typically the usual teams, because 98% of baseballdoesnt want to now pay their closer 15 mil a season.
It's almost like there is a "worth" for a player, and then their is the Yankees/Boston/_____ price. And all too often those prices dictate somany salaries that it just gets out of whack.
Anyways this is nothing new here, as stated we've been over this. Money does NOT buy you rings, and the Yanks havent won one for awhile now. But what wehave seen in the MLB is $$$ buys you contention. And the Yanks or Sox payroll dictates they will be in the playoffs 95% of the time, and once you get to theplayoffs its fair game. But they are right there. The rest of baseball? They are 50/50 shot, or usually worse.
The chic thing to then say is "tell your owner to spend money." Thats not realistic. And we often times do see our owners spend. Just not on thelevel of the top 4 teams. Again, no shot to NY or Boston cause they SHOULD be operating that way if they are allowed. And NY DOES contribute their"tax." But the entire situation it just leaves the rest of people looking at reality and there is no real solution it seems like. MLB, to me, isseverly flawed.
We have these debates on here constantly, and I can see both sides. I come from a small market area so I have stronger feelings towards that....just likeYankee and Red Sox fans have stronger feelings on their way. I'd never hold it against NY throwing around money like they do....that is the way ALL fanswish their teams would operate. They have the option of overspending and they do it. More power to them. However you still are going to get jealousy, and youstill are going to get people saying "That aint right." Spending is one thing, throwing money around like it's going out of style is another.
Let's look at it competitively, and nothing else just for a minute. We've all gone over owners that are cheap, owners that spend too much, etc. Thetruth as usual lies probably somewhere in the middle.
Just as one example according to USA Today here were the higher-middle payrolls for the MLB for 2007:
10. $93.5 million - Orioles
11. $90.3 - Cardinals
12. $90.2 - Giants
13. $89.4 - Phillies
The Yankees payroll? About $200 million. We know the hole there. If the Yankees spend 100 mil on one player, and his previous team offered him a morereasonable 60 mil for his skill-set, is his previous team really "cheap." Thats the question sometimes. Often times I dont know.
So you look at the Yankees payroll, how it litterally dwarfs almost every teams....then now you hear they are in the lead with Santana and will have to giveHIM $150 million. And next offseason (or the trade deadline), they'll take on another huge contract on top of that. Its like, when does it ever end? Whenis my favorite team going to be able to not have to worry about "Well, the YANKS will overpay him cause they want him." So my team then has tooverpay him or risk losing him and "disrespecting him."
You look at the Yankees signing an aging (but yes still productive) Mariano for 40+ million or whatever. Do you know the domino effect that then has for therest of baseball? Now every younger top closer will say he is worth 50. So teams then have to dump them to typically the usual teams, because 98% of baseballdoesnt want to now pay their closer 15 mil a season.
It's almost like there is a "worth" for a player, and then their is the Yankees/Boston/_____ price. And all too often those prices dictate somany salaries that it just gets out of whack.
Anyways this is nothing new here, as stated we've been over this. Money does NOT buy you rings, and the Yanks havent won one for awhile now. But what wehave seen in the MLB is $$$ buys you contention. And the Yanks or Sox payroll dictates they will be in the playoffs 95% of the time, and once you get to theplayoffs its fair game. But they are right there. The rest of baseball? They are 50/50 shot, or usually worse.
The chic thing to then say is "tell your owner to spend money." Thats not realistic. And we often times do see our owners spend. Just not on thelevel of the top 4 teams. Again, no shot to NY or Boston cause they SHOULD be operating that way if they are allowed. And NY DOES contribute their"tax." But the entire situation it just leaves the rest of people looking at reality and there is no real solution it seems like. MLB, to me, isseverly flawed.
- 1,382
- 13
Unfortunately I see the Evil Empire getting him
- 6,597
- 10
It's not just the Yankees doing this. Who told Texas to give A Rod the largest contract in the history of sports when he signed with them? Who told the Giants to give over a 100 million to Barry Zito who isn't even worth 50? The list goes on and on.
There's no limit - but a big market team has MORE money to spend... you can't get into a bidding war with them or else you lose everytime, and ontop of that, you drive the price of EVERY player up so you can afford even LESS.
You make it sound as though every team owner oughta be able to afford to pay for players out of their own pockets.. it doesn't work like that. Justbecause Steinbrenner can do it doesn't mean the Royals and Pirates owners can afford it... could the pirates and royals spend more money? Yes, but wouldit improve their team enough to make the playoffs if they broke even in their books? NO. It would just make everyone else in the league with more money spendeven more money...not to mention drive up the prices for consumers in the mean time, ticket prices, merchandise, concessions...
You talk as though teams like the Yanks and Bosox are good for baseball, when it's the complete opposite.. they are what's going to cause HUGE problemsdown the road because of how high they are jacking up the prices of EVERYTHING with their bidding wars.
- 21,951
- 1,398
Spending money makes you competitive if spent wisely, but ONLY in the regular season.
In a short 5 or 7 game series, payroll means absolutely nothing.
In a short 5 or 7 game series, payroll means absolutely nothing.
- 532
- 10
The argument for a salary cap really doesn't hold any weight when you have smaller market teams winning championships and going deep into the playoffs. The fact of the matter is that people are always going to see it differently and have their objections to the rules which is fine. I'm from the Bronx andhave been a Yankee fan my whole life and it's obvious that money doesn't buy you championships. It's how wisely you spend that money and wehaven't done that over the past few years with some of the rediculous signings we've made.
However it's not the Yankees, Red Sox, or Mets' fault that the market for certain players is so high. Whenever a player becomes a free agent, theypretty much set the standard for what the free agent market is going to look like for that particular offseason. We saw it last year with Zito and that absurdcontract he got from the Giants, yes the Giants and not the Yanks or Boston, and how that affected the market for the rest of the starters. You can't tellme he would've got that money if he was a free agent along with guys like Johan or Peavy. It was just fortunate for him that he was one of the best freeagent pitchers available at the time and whoever was desperate enough for a starter was going to have to shell out big bucks to get him.
Now Ska I hear what you're saying that the NBA isn't MLB, but the same principles apply. You pretty much have the same teams in the NBA playoffs eachyear with some new ones down at the bottom seeds so there's really no difference imo. With 16 teams going to the playoffs, each team pretty much has a 50%shot at making it every year (which should be changed imo but we'll leave that for another post)
. MLB has had alot of different teams with low payrolls make it to the playoffs(Dbacks, Marlins, Rockies, Astros, Twins, Oakland) and a few have won it since the Yankees in the 90s.
MLB is more competitive now then it's ever been. Just look at last season and how teams were taking it to the last weekend of the season to get intothe playoffs. You had the Dbacks and the Rockies playing for the NL pennant. Tell me how many "experts" predicted that would happen. Yea maybealot of people picked Boston to win it, but even they were a game away from being knocked out by a smaller market team no less.
However it's not the Yankees, Red Sox, or Mets' fault that the market for certain players is so high. Whenever a player becomes a free agent, theypretty much set the standard for what the free agent market is going to look like for that particular offseason. We saw it last year with Zito and that absurdcontract he got from the Giants, yes the Giants and not the Yanks or Boston, and how that affected the market for the rest of the starters. You can't tellme he would've got that money if he was a free agent along with guys like Johan or Peavy. It was just fortunate for him that he was one of the best freeagent pitchers available at the time and whoever was desperate enough for a starter was going to have to shell out big bucks to get him.
Now Ska I hear what you're saying that the NBA isn't MLB, but the same principles apply. You pretty much have the same teams in the NBA playoffs eachyear with some new ones down at the bottom seeds so there's really no difference imo. With 16 teams going to the playoffs, each team pretty much has a 50%shot at making it every year (which should be changed imo but we'll leave that for another post)
MLB is more competitive now then it's ever been. Just look at last season and how teams were taking it to the last weekend of the season to get intothe playoffs. You had the Dbacks and the Rockies playing for the NL pennant. Tell me how many "experts" predicted that would happen. Yea maybealot of people picked Boston to win it, but even they were a game away from being knocked out by a smaller market team no less.
- 25,275
- 13,333
- 532
- 10
Bottom line is if you put a contending team on the field, more likely than not you're going to attract more fans. It's just like any other businessthat puts a crappy product out that doesn't sell as much as a competitor with a better quality product. You put a better team on the field, you'llsell more tickets and merchandise to allow yourself to go out and spend more money on players. Of course that doesn't mean small market teams like thePirates would be making the same money as NY teams, but it should be enough for them to be a little more competitive.
I don't know about any of you, but I would gladly pay a little extra for a ticket or whatever else if I knew it was going directly towards fielding awinning team. I already pay more than most of you in smaller markets when I go to a Yankee game and drop over $8 on a beer and I damn well better have a goodteam to watch if it's gonna cost me around $60 just to get buzzed.
Not for nothing, people shouldn't own a franchise if they don't plan on spending the money to make their team better. I wouldn't open up abusiness and put just enough into it that I can get away with making a profit and not satisfying my customers to the fullest extent. That's basically whatI'm trying to get at.
I don't know about any of you, but I would gladly pay a little extra for a ticket or whatever else if I knew it was going directly towards fielding awinning team. I already pay more than most of you in smaller markets when I go to a Yankee game and drop over $8 on a beer and I damn well better have a goodteam to watch if it's gonna cost me around $60 just to get buzzed.
Not for nothing, people shouldn't own a franchise if they don't plan on spending the money to make their team better. I wouldn't open up abusiness and put just enough into it that I can get away with making a profit and not satisfying my customers to the fullest extent. That's basically whatI'm trying to get at.
- 8,139
- 88
Yankees Change Offer for Santana
- 6,597
- 10
- 748
- 10
tom hicks are responsible for the money problems in baseball not the yankees....hicks started the whole thing by giving arod 250 while the yanks were neverwilling to spend that much
- 6,597
- 10
Yeah - because the contracts the yanks were giving out at the time weren't excessive either.
- 748
- 10
^ they gave derek jeter 180 million after arods deal bc well hes derek jeter and who else did they sign that was excessive?!!!!!!!!!!!! state players
they gave mussina 80 million- well deserved
they gave mussina 80 million- well deserved
- 25,275
- 13,333
Giambi, Damon, Clemens, Moose, Pavano...Brought in A-Rod and gave him what could equal 31.4 mil a year over 10 years on a contract. Brought in Abreuand his 16 or 17 mil/year deal...Throw on Rivera/Posada's new deals (although deserved) and you've got far more money than all but 2-3 other teams inbaseball can afford to spend...Their payroll is almost 200 million bucks...The hell you talking about who else did they bring in that had an excessive deal?
- 6,597
- 10
Their payroll is twice that of the next closest team, i don't have to "state" players... it's the whole roster.
- 21,784
- 2,957
Oakland Athletics, I wish.
- 1,382
- 13
Hopefully Boston can win the sweepstakes, just to spite the yanks.
